
Divine Inspiration 



T. McK. STUART 









&4K* 



>\*„ 



■ 



Class 
Book. 




,5^5 



Copyright^' 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



Divine Inspiration 

vs. 

The Documentary Theory of the 
Higher Criticism 



Divine Inspiration 



vs. 



The Documentary Theory 
of the Higher Criticism 



By T. McK. Stuart, D. D. 



I 



Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham 
New York: Eaton and Mains 



Sis 



xm3R£SS 


0ot>te8 <?ecefved 


1 1904 


OLASS <# XXO, No- 
COPY 8 



COPYRIGHT, 1904, BY 
JENNINGS AND GRAHAM 



8 



Contents 



<£ 



CHAPTER I 

The Issue Joined, - - - 14 

CHAPTER II 

The Modified Documentary Theory, 45 

CHAPTER III 

The Higher Criticism and the Proph- 
ets, - - - - - - 60 

CHAPTER IV 
A Sample of this Criticism, - 78 



Higher Criticism vs. Divine 
Inspiration 

Preliminary to a discussion of this 
proposition, "Does Higher Criticism in- 
validate Biblical Inspiration?" it is im- 
portant to reach a definite understanding 
as to the meaning of the terms here em- 
ployed, and the sense in which we shall 
use them. Higher criticism as a species 
of criticism has necessarily no antagonism 
to the Bible nor to its claim as a Divine 
revelation. It means simply the critical 
study of the Bible in the light of its his- 
7 



Higher Criticism vs. 

torical relations, its language or lan- 
guages, its literary structure, and the like. 
The word "higher," however, as defining 
the criticism is meaningless, if not mis- 
leading. Neither literally nor metaphor- 
ically can it be said to be higher than any 
other form of criticism. In fact, there is 
not a sharp and well-defined distinction 
between its province, and that of textual 
or so-called "lower criticism." The 
higher criticism invades the domain of 
textual criticism, whenever it attempts to 
correct the text or modify the translation, 
as it often does with hypotheses and sup- 
positions. It is the province of textual 
criticism to give us, if possible, from 
manuscripts and other collateral sources 
the original text of the Scriptures. 
Higher criticism it will be seen has to do 
8 



Divine Inspiration 

with the literature of the Bible and the 
historical relations of its authors to their 
times and environment. Its findings are 
therefore conjectural, and founded upon 
grounds equally conjectural. Literary 
and historical criticism in the realm of 
secular history and literature has never 
furnished very much assurance of its reli- 
ability. Its fundamental assumptions 
have been skeptical. This is especially 
true with reference to the higher criticism 
as applied to the Bible. If the Bible is a 
Divine revelation it holds an exceptional 
relation to all rules of criticism. The 
critic who rejects the story of the miracle 
has at once prejudged the whole question 
so far as the Bible is concerned. It is 
this attempt upon the part of the critics 
to apply the rules of criticism in all cases 
9 



Higher Criticism vs. 

to the Bible, that has made the phrase 
"higher criticism" objectionable to the be- 
liever in Divine revelation, for it has 
seemed to be an ally of skepticism. Espe- 
cially is this true, since the critics have 
uniformly sought to give an account of 
the origin of the Scriptures distinctively 
different from that which by just impli- 
cations the books give of themselves. In 
other words, the history of higher crit- 
icism has been identified with a series of 
sucessive hypotheses that have contra- 
dicted the Divine origin of the Scriptures 
as a revelation from God. The Old Docu- 
ment Theory, the Fragment Theory, the 
Crystallization Theory, and, lastly, the 
Modified Document Theory, have each 
squarely antagonized the historic veracity 
and authenticity of the Scriptures. 

IO 



Divine Inspiration 

When, therefore, the proposition, 
"Does the higher criticism invalidate 
Biblical inspiration ?" is submitted to us, 
we take it for granted that there is here 
meant, "Does the Modified Document 
theory of the critics invalidate Biblical 
inspiration ?" I shall maintain the affirm- 
ative of this proposition. I shall not dis- 
cuss any theory of inspiration, but use 
the word in the general sense of the Di- 
vine guarantee to the veracity of the 
Scriptures. The only thing I am con- 
cerned to know is this: Is the Bible true? 
And is it a revelation from God? The 
truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures will 
take care of their inspiration. It is not 
what is technically known as the doctrine 
of inspiration that is concerned' in the 
issue with the Documentary theory. We 
ii 



Higher Criticism vs. 

are told by certain conservative critics that 
we may hold to theories of inspiration 
that will not accord with facts as they are 
found in the Scriptures. One writer 
("New Apologetic/' page 107) asks: 
''Suppose you hold a doctrine of inspira- 
tion that is clearly inconsistent with well 
ascertained facts of the Scriptures, what 
are you going to do with the facts ?" We 
answer: "Suppose these alleged facts 
make the Scriptures contradict them- 
selves, we will be honest enough to quit 
talking about theories of inspiration. We 
will deny the possibility of inspiration at 
all, and address ourselves to the alleged 
facts, for we have found that they often- 
times disappear under a searching investi- 
gation. This one thing we know with 
12 



Divine Inspiration 

definite certainty, that a falsehood can not 
be divinely inspired. Anything, there- 
fore, that tends to invalidate the Scrip- 
tures destroys inspiration of any and 
every sort, 



13 



CHAPTER I 
The Issue Joined 

What is the Documentary theory that 
is held in all essential features by both 
destructive critics and conservatives alike 
— by those who deny a supernatural reve- 
lation, and those who still cling to that 
idea, though they leave but little of it in 
the Old Testament Scriptures? 

The Documentary theory is a theory of 
the origin of certain books of the Old 
Testament entirely different from that 
taught by necessary inference from these 
books themselves, and from that taught 
also by the New Testament, and received 
14 



Divine Inspiration 

from uniform tradition down from the 
time those books were written. Now let 
it not be forgotten that it is simply a 
theory, and that it is founded upon a 
series of hypotheses. Theories are 
evolved for the purpose of explaining 
facts, and are only entitled to our con- 
sideration when they explain all the im- 
portant facts. 

Now then as to the theory, it assumes 
that the first six books of the Bible called 
by the critics "The Hexateuch," were the 
production of at least five different au- 
thors, or four authors and an editor called 
a Redactor. Why "Hexateuch?" Be- 
cause the theory demands the obliteration 
of the Pentateuch. According to it there 
were no five books of Moses nor of the 
Torah. But again why "Hexateuch ?" 
*5 



Higher Criticism vs. 

Because these six books are said to contain 
the four documents of the theory. In 
other words, "Hexateuch" was born of 
the theory of documents, and has no basis 
of existence outside of it. It is an im- 
pertinence, for it is an assumption of the 
whole question in dispute. There is a 
reason for Pentateuch in uniform history 
and tradition ; there is none whatever for 
"Hexateuch," except in the conceit of cer- 
tain critics. 

Now the simplest form of this Docu- 
mentary theory is this : J. E. D, P. R 1 . R 2 . 
R 3 . J. is the Jehovist, or Jahvist, or Yah- 
wist — the last two are the terms used by 
the critics. This Jehovist is supposed to 
have written about 800 B. C. E the Elo- 
hist is supposed to have written about 
750 B. C, and to have belonged to the 
16 



Divine Inspiration 

Northern kingdom of Israel, while the Je- 
hovist belonged to Judea. D the Deuter- 
onomist is supposed to have written about 
621 B. C. P the Priest or "Second Elo- 
hist" is supposed to have written after the 
Exile, and about 444 B. C. R' is the first 
Redactor who is supposed to have united 
the documents J and E together into the 
document JE. R 2 and R 3 made other re- 
dactions before the text came to its pres- 
ent form. The last redaction was made 
as late as the fourth century B. C. 

Now it must not be inferred that the 
critics agree as to the number of redac- 
tions, modifications, combinations, and in- 
terpolations made before the books re- 
ceived the final form in which we have 
them. There may be some agreement as 
to general features, but there is unlim- 

2 x y 



Higher Criticism vs. 

ited disagreement in details, each critic 
being governed by his own preconceptions 
as to what his so-called canons of criticism 
demand. Some of them carry us off into 
a maze of cabalistic letters exceedingly 
confusing, and we find ourselves wonder- 
ing, "Can they be serious in this matter ?" 
Bartlett ("Veracity of the Hexateuch," 
page 306) gives the constituents of the 
Hexateuch according to Cornill as J 1 , J 2 , 
J 3 , E\ E 2 , E 3 , D. Dh, Dp. P 1 , P 2 , P 3 , Rj, 
Rd, Rp, and some fragments not included. 
Now as complementary to this hypo- 
thetical literary structure is the theory of 
the three codes of the Mosaic law. The 
first is the Sinaitic code, which had its be- 
ginning, it is assumed, in the days of the 
Exodus, and in a general way may be 
attributed to Moses. It is principally to 
18 



Divine Inspiration 

be found in Exodus xx to xxiii, though 
much of even this legislation belongs to 
a period after the settlement in Canaan. 
Part of the Decalogue is not of Mosaic 
authorship, especially the first two com- 
mandments, because they inculcate a strict 
monotheism, and that does not comport 
with the development theory concerning 
Israel's gradual approach to monotheism. 
These critics make Israel for several hun- 
dred years polytheists — worshipers of 
Baal and other Canaanite divinities. The 
Deuteronomic codex, which is to be found 
in the Book of Deuteronomy, is said to 
have been first produced by Hilkiah the 
priest in the time of Josiah, about 621 
B. C. It was a forgery that the wily 
priest palmed off on the kingdom of Judah 
as the law of Moses. It was produced in 
*9 



Higher Criticism vs. 

the interest of one altar, and that at Jeru- 
salem. The Priest codex is all that part 
of Levitical legislation that we find prin- 
cipally in Exodus and Leviticus. P, or 
otherwise called the Second Elohist, is the 
primary author of this about 444 B. C, 
and after the return of the Jews from 
Babylonian exile. Now this scheme of 
the three codices, it is contended, is in har- 
mony with the history of Israel's develop- 
ment as they educe it from the historical 
books. Underlying this contention are 
several assumptions. Assumption number 
one is, that laws could not be enacted in 
anticipation of a condition of society 
which at that time did not exist. For 
example, the Sinaitic legislation which 
made provisions for dwelling in cities, 
and the settled conditions after the con- 
20 



Divine Inspiration 

quest of Canaan. Another assumption is 
that the laws enforcing the worship of 
Jehovah alone could not exist, because of 
the seeming prevalence of idolatrous wor- 
ship among the Israelites for a long period 
in their early history. Another assump- 
tion is, that the law enjoining worship at 
one altar could not exist, because of the 
fact that it was frequently violated, and 
in some few instances for the time being 
the Almighty authorized sacrifice at other 
altars, as in the case at Bochim, and with 
Gideon and Manoah. Now does anybody 
seriously believe that the violation of a 
law is proof that it does not exist? If 
so, we are exceedingly puzzled with some 
facts concerning our prohibitory law in 
Iowa, and also the existence of that non- 
descript called the mulct law. As to the 

21 



Higher Criticism vs. 

authorized altars, is not a special Divine 
theophany a sufficient reason for the al- 
tars ? Another assumption is, that silence 
upon the part of the inspired historians 
concerning certain rites of the Levitical 
services evinces that these rites did not 
exist. This argument from silence in its 
many phases plays a very prominent part 
with these critics. Yet there is nothing 
more delusive. In fact, it proves abso- 
lutely nothing. 

Now some eminent conservatives are 
so greatly enamored with this theory of 
the gradual development of the three 
codes, that in their enthusiasm they are 
shouting victory. George Adam Smith 
exclaims, "Criticism has won, and we may 
now proceed to discuss the indemnity." 
Won on what? A series of negative as- 

22 



Divine Inspiration 

sumptions. If assertions and assumptions 
could win an argument, Smith has it. We 
marvel that a scholarly man, and a be- 
liever in a supernatural divine revelation, 
could be so carried away by the heat of 
his imagination. 

Now the literary partition of the five 
books of Moses into documents has been 
made to conform to this theory of the 
three codes and their gradual evolution. 
It was this theory of the codes that 
made at a certain stage of the devel- 
opment of this documentary theory a 
perfect revolution of the Elohists, so 
that the first Elohistic writer of Gen- 
esis became the "Second Elohist." This 
alleged "Second Elohist" is the writer 
called the Priest, the alleged author 
of the latest of the four documents; 
2 3 



Higher Criticism vs. 

the one originating about 444 B. C. 
Why was this necessary? To get the 
Priest with his Codex after the Exile. 
But the First Elohist sprung into exist- 
ence, in order that the Second Elohist 
might not show a too great versatility o; 
literary character for the strict limitations 
of the theory. Now the theory teaches 
that this Second Elohist wrote the first 
chapter of Genesis to the third verse of the 
second chapter, and all the genealogical 
sections of Genesis, and always uses the 
term Elohim for the Deity until you come 
to the sixth chapter of Exodus, w r hen he 
suddenly becomes a Jehovist. He also let 
his priestly characteristics and predilec- 
tions stand out after that, while before he 
studiously avoided all mention of sacri- 
fices, offerings, and priestly matters, 
24 



Divine Inspiration 

Quite a unique character is this Elohist- 
Jehovist. I am not surprised that they 
make him thus artful, for from first to last 
he aims to deceive. Now the marvel is that 
these theorists do not see that they have 
made an impossible character out of this 
priest. They tell us he is a cold, passion- 
less, verbose chronicler, who never men- 
tions a sacrifice or a priest, or a priestly 
rite of any kind, until the call of Moses; 
then he suddenly changes (not his literary 
style), but the whole burden of his writ- 
ings, and becomes a priest, and a Jehovist 
priest, too, at that. Now the primary basis 
of this documentary theory was the use of 
the Divine names Elohim and Jehovah. 
These were used to make the sharpest pos- 
sible distinction between the hypothetical 
authors. Yet here is an Elohist who turns 
25 



Higher Criticism vs. 

Johovist midway in his alleged produc- 
tion. Why not call him a Jehovist ? Or 
why not, as in the case of the Elohists, 
discover a second Jehovist? 

This then leads us to speak of this hy- 
pothetical "First Elohist." In the exist- 
ing text of the Bible he is supposed to put 
in his first appearance in the combined 
JE of Gen. ii-iii, but appears alone about 
the twentieth chapter for the first time. 
Why was he needed in the exigencies of 
the theory ? First, he uses Elohim. Sec- 
ond, he has literary characteristics that the 
"Second Elohist" is not supposed to have. 
Third, he writes about sacrifices and offer- 
ings. So the theory ran aground against 
its own distinguishing marks. We con- 
tend that there is also a demand that the 



26 



Divine Inspiration 

"Second Elohist" be divided into two to 
meet the requirements of the theory. 

But the Jehovist who puts in his appear- 
ance with the fourth verse of the second 
chapter of Genesis, is on critical theories 
an equally peculiar literary character. lie 
is a Jehovah-Elohist. That is, he uses 
both of the primary marks of distinction. 
But he is supposed to be a redacted affair. 
That is, a Redactor has produced a 
blended document here, and keeps that up 
to the end of the third chapter, when the 
uncombined Jehovist appears. On the 
theory of the critics, can anything be more 
inexplicable than this ? To what conceiv- 
able purpose this adding of Elohim to an 
original Jehovist document for these two 
chapters ? Why was it not continued ? It 



27 



Higher Criticism vs. 

is all in place and perfectly explicable on 
the assumption that the author of the book 
had before him Genesis i-ii, 1-3, and 
aimed to show that the God who created 
the heavens and the earth was Jehovah 
the God of Israel. Now we have no quar- 
rel with a rational documentary theory; 
namely, that Moses may have had docu- 
ments before him, and especially a very 
ancient account of creation. In fact, we 
believe that this sublime creation docu- 
ment was the first Divine revelation made 
to man, to teach him to worship the Cre- 
ator and not the creature — either sun, 
moon, or stars — earth, air, fire, or water. 
This creation story is divided into seven 
divisions by the declaration, "And God 
saw that it was good." It is neither "repe- 
titious nor verbose," as the critics say. 
28 



Divine Inspiration 

It is plain, direct, simple, sublime. The 
cosmogonic literature of the ancients fur- 
nishes nothing like it. It is a sheer pre- 
tense, without one particle of proof that 
it was brought from Babylon by the re- 
turning exiles, or that "it was one of a 
series of creation legends existing among 
the Oriental peoples," as a quite recent 
Methodist writer in the field of science 
has dared to say. There is not one of 
these creation legends down to the latest 
one deciphered from Babylonian cunei- 
form that is not filled with peurile con- 
ceits, and polytheistic conceptions by the 
side of it. These may furnish some very 
general resemblance to it, but that is all ; 
perhaps enough to show that they are 
polytheistic renditions of the same orig- 
inal account of creation. 
29 



Higher Criticism vs. 

It is not our purpose in this discussion 
to turn aside from our proper theme to 
reconcile this story with the discoveries 
of science. There is no need of reconcili- 
ation, as there is legitimately no conflict. 
The purpose of this account is to reveal 
God in creation, not to furnish data for 
the scientist to work upon. Yet how 
strangely the geologist has dropped into 
the phraseology of this cosmogony in giv- 
ing us his cosmogony. He talks of "pri- 
mordial light," of "chaos," of the "appear- 
ance of the continents out of the waters/' 
and the "appearing of the dry land," of 
the "dawn" of life — the "Eozoic" age, the 
"successive peopling of the earth and seas 
with living things." No scientist in as few 
words could describe better the separation 
of the atmosphere, from the primordial 
30 



Divine Inspiration 

gases, vapors, and fluids and the office 
this atmospheric expanse was to fulfill as 
a medium of transmission of light, heat, 
and the vapor of water from above to the 
earth, and an agency of protection from 
a meteoric bombardment from without, 
than is done in the sixth and seventh 
verses of this account. "And God said 
let there be a firmament in the midst of the 
waters, and let it divide the waters from 
the waters." Here is the office of the at- 
mosphere to separate the waters from the 
waters — "to modify and control their op- 
erations, and to offer a firmamentuin to 
assault — the assault of heat or cold or 
light or solid bodies from without, yet in 
the open firmament of the heaven the fowl 
were to fly above the earth." Nor is it 
necessary for us to determine the idea that 
3 1 



Higher Criticism vs. 

the ancient Hebrew attached to this word 
raqia. Here its office is fully set forth, 
and scientifically fulfilled as we know it 
to-day. 

But this was a digression from the gen- 
eral purpose of our writing, which is not 
to show the unreasonableness of the docu- 
mentary theory, but to show that it can 
not be legitimately held and faith in the 
truth of the Old Testament Scriptures 
maintained. In other words, this docu- 
mentary theory antagonizes the teaching 
of the historic portion of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures from beginning to end. 
It is absolutely revolutionary, and incon- 
sistent with the veracity of the record. 
This can be easily determined in the mind 
of any unprejudiced student, by simply 
placing tLe Old Testament of the critics, 
3 2 



Divine Inspiration 

with its theories as to the origin of its 
several parts, by the side of our Bible as 
it comes to us down through the ages, and 
it will be at once manifest that they are in 
antagonism throughout. Unquestionably 
the Pentateuch teaches the Mosaic origin 
of the entire Levitical economy. That the 
whole of it originated in the days of the 
sojourn in the wilderness, and if not from 
the pen of Moses, under his direction. 
Take Deuteronomy, for example. Does it 
not teach that its code from beginning to 
end came from Moses, and was delivered 
by him to Israel while they were yet east 
of the Jordan? Does not any fair and 
rational interpretation of the Book of 
Joshua imply and teach the same thing, 
and neither of these books can be made to 
teach anything else only as they are torn 
3 33 



Higher Criticism vs. 

to pieces after the manner of the docu- 
mentary theory, and their parts assigned 
to a later date, and the work of Redactors 
and interpolators freely used. 

A somewhat eminent writer on this 
subject has said : "A theory which makes 
the tabernacle a fiction, the priestly code 
an invention of Ezekiel, and the minute 
account of boards and sockets, and bars, 
and hooks, and pillars, and curtains, and 
loops, and taches, and pots, and basins, 
and bowls, and spoons, and shovels, and 
plates, and pans, the conceptions of Jewish 
priests at the time of the Exile, ought to 
tell us how such bondage of the letter fits 
into a theory of religious development. 
Is not the survival of the fittest a funda- 
mental law of such a development? But 
behold the lofty lessons of Amos, Isaiah, 
34 



Divine Inspiration 

and Micah, who, according to these critics, 
denounced sacrifices as a vain thing, with- 
out Divine authority, and hateful to Je- 
hovah, are superseded and overgrown by 
a ceremonial of outward service concocted 
by designing priests and foisted upon the 
chosen people in the name of Moses." 
("Introduction to Pentateuch," Whedon's 
Commentary, page 38.) Now the Docu- 
mentary theory does this very thing. And 
must we not say that that which was 
"concocted by designing priests and 
foisted upon the chosen people in the name 
of Moses," is simply an unparalleled 
fraud which can have in no conceivable 
sense the Divine inspiration ? The author 
from which I have just quoted has, in my 
judgment, clearly established the Mosaic 
authorship of the Pentateuch, and also 
35 



Higher Criticism vs. 

cleared out of the way all the objections 
of this criticism thereto. But if he had 
not and could not, the fatal objection to 
this scheme of criticism still remains that 
it makes the Old Testament a stupendous 
fraud through the perversity of Redactors 
and interpolators, and we are out on a 
chartless sea with no guide but the perpet- 
ually changing guesses of the critics, and 
judging by the past of their speculations, 
the Lord only knows on what shores they 
will ultimately land us. 

But one of the processes by which the 
advocates of this criticism, and especially 
those of orthodox predilections, seek to 
get a footing for their theory, is the mag- 
nifying of the small apparent discrepancies 
found in the Bible. The writer above 
quoted, in speaking of this disposition of 
36 



Divine Inspiration 

the critics, says : "More use is often made 
of what the writer does not say than of 
what he does say. Discrepancies are also 
needlessly magnified, and any passage or 
event, however important, that stands in 
the way of the critic's theory, is arbitra- 
rily set aside as the addition of a different 
writer or the product of a later age." 
(Whedon's Commentary, Genesis, page 
37.) Now there is a difference as wide 
as the poles between these minute discrep- 
ancies, some of which from our present 
knowledge we may not be able to recon- 
cile and the wholesale invalidating of Old 
Testament history. The infidel uses these 
blemishes to overthrow the Bible. Inger- 
soll was voluble on the "mistakes of 
Moses." The critic uses them to prepare 
the way for the numerous discrepancies, 
37 



Higher Criticism vs. 

contradictions, and intentional frauds that 
his theory makes. The critic makes a con- 
flict between the first and second chapters 
of Genesis a conflict between the alleged 
two accounts of the flood, and reserves his 
finest scorn for the Reconciler. The skep- 
tic does not need to spend his time in op- 
posing the plans of the reconcilers; that 
has been neatly done to order by the crit- 
ics, with a great deal of sage and scholarly 
advice thrown in. Yet the orthodox crit- 
ics who adopt these theories are recon- 
cilers with a larger task before them to 
reconcile the Bible as at all a revelation 
from God with these theories borrowed 
from men avowedly skeptical as to the 
possibility of any supernatural revelation. 
It is positively touching to see conserv- 
ative critics trying to save a small mod- 
38 



Divine Inspiration 

icum of Divine revelation from the wreck 
and ruin their documentary theory makes. 
It fills the Old Testament with legends, 
but "these legends have a good moral and 
spiritual significance/ ' so these conserv- 
atives tell us, as a small compensation for 
the loss we have sustained in having their 
historic reality overthrown. Here, how- 
ever, is a class of facts that greatly trouble 
us, and must trouble the conservative rec- 
onciler. Christ and His apostles deal with 
these "legends" as though they were his- 
toric realities. For example, Christ treats 
the story of creation as though it revealed 
real facts. Compare Matt, xix, 4, 5, with 
Gen. ii, 23, 24. "Have ye not read that 
He that made them from the beginning, 
made them male and female?" Now how 
will this sound : "Therefore"- — that is, be- 
39 



Higher Criticism vs. 

cause of this legendary story — "a man 
shall leave his father and mother and shall 
cleave unto his wife, and the twain shall 
become one flesh ?" In like manner 
he indorsed the so-called legendary 
story of Noah and the flood. (Matt, 
xxiv, 37-39.) "And as were the days of 
Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son 
of man. For as in those days which were 
before the flood they were eating and 
drinking, marrying and giving in mar- 
riage, until the day that Noah entered into 
the ark, and they knew not until the 
flood came and took them all away, so 
shall be the coming of the Son of man." 
So also the "legends of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, and the accounts of Elijah and 
Elisha, and the stories concerning the 
widow of Sarepta and Naaman the 
40 



Divine Inspiration 

Syrian. How would this sound ? "As in 
the legendary story of Jonah he was three 
days and three nights in the whale's belly, 
even so shall the Son of man be three days 
and three nights in the bowels of the 
earth." Paul founds an extensive argu- 
ment on the legendary story of the fall of 
man in the garden of Eden. Is it not at 
once apparent that the old reconciler has 
a small task by the side of his more mod- 
ern congener, who attempts to harmonize 
the veracity of God's Word with these 
theories? We very much prefer the task 
of the old reconciler. 

In fact, the men who evolved this theory 
were not seeking a basis of reconciliation 
with the acceptance of the supernatural — 
the miraculous and the prophetic. They 
were seeking so to overthrow the story 
41 



Higher Criticism vs. 

of the miracle that there may be left 
no standing ground for it. This in the 
interest of materialism. The writer be- 
fore cited says : "Most of these critics 
enter on the study of the Bible under a 
prejudice hostile to any supposable mani- 
festation of the Supernatural in human 
history. Many of them confess this at 
the outset. With such writers all miracles 
are myths or legends, and he is the ablest 
critic who devises the most plausible 
theory of their origin." 

"A dispassionate study of the works of 
these critics begets a conviction that the 
detailed arguments by which they en- 
deavor to support their theories are not 
the real steps of the process by which their 
conclusions were reached. The entire his- 
tory of critical assaults upon the Mosaic 
42 



Divine Inspiration 

authorship of the Pentateuch has been 
notably a succession of adjustments. One 
theory has given place to another, and the 
methods by which they have been put for- 
ward and argued are largely of the nature 
of special pleading to maintain a position 
already definitely taken." (Whedon's 
Commentary, Genesis, page 36.) 

Now this clear and concise statement 
of the case is, in my opinion, a very suffi- 
cient reason why all conservative critics 
should reject the Documentary theory. It 
is of skeptical origin, and based not on 
facts, but upon skeptical preconceptions. 
It matters not who it is that calls the great 
salient historic facts of the Old Testament 
legends, whether it is a destructive critic 
or a conservative, the issue with the Bible 
is the same and the challenge to faith in 
43 



Higher Criticism vs. 

God's Word is the same. Whenever I 
accept that theory, I decline the impossible 
task of reconciling the Old Testament 
with any conceivable idea of Divine in- 
spiration. 



44 



CHAPTER II 

The Modified Documentary 
Theory 

But this Documentary theory has its 
counterpart in the critic's dealings with 
the Prophetic books. Those marvels of 
incisive preaching, of perfect moral teach- 
ing, and of an unsurpassable monotheism, 
always facing the glorious future of the 
Messiah's reign, and in their conceptions 
sweeping the ages to come when "the isles 
shall wait for His law," and "the moun- 
tain of the Lord's house shall be estab- 
lished in the top of the mountains, and all 
nations shall flow unto it." These pro- 
ductions, without parallel in the history of 
45 



Higher Criticism vs. 

any nation that ever existed, must be sub- 
jected to the same divisive processes. 
Great Isaiah is first divided in two, and 
then hacked into fragments. There is a 
tradition that he was sawn asunder by 
order of Manasseh the king. Possibly 
this was anticipatory of the work of the 
critics. One thing is certain, however, 
that the same theoretical assumptions that 
divided the book in two at the close of the 
thirty-ninth chapter, also required a di- 
vision of the first thirty-nine chapters into 
five or more parts. So logical consistency 
has compelled the critics to take away 
from Isaiah such chapters as the eleventh, 
twelfth, thirty-fifth, and other sections. 
I have not the space, nor is it my purpose, 
to defend the unity of Isaiah's prophecies, 
but simply to call attention to the fact that 
46 



Divine Inspiration 

the theory of division is founded upon pre- 
conceptions concerning the prophecies con- 
tained in the book. For example, the 
naming of Cyrus as the divinely appointed 
deliverer of the captive Jews. (Chapter 
xliv, 28, et al.) Now this is no more 
difficult nor unreasonable than other 
prophecies concerning the Messiah, that 
were given on any theory possible hun- 
dreds of years before the time of the Mes- 
siah. The fifty-third chapter as a proph- 
ecy of the Messiah is much more wonder- 
ful than the prophecy concerning Cyrus. 
But, again, if the allusion to Cyrus is not 
prophetic, it is a subterfuge and a fraud, 
for it is in the language of prophecy — it 
refers to events yet future. Now the critics 
suppose that a promiscuous lot of anony- 
mous prophecies were compiled together 
47 



Higher Criticism vs. 

in a prophetic roll bearing the name of 
Isaiah. Whoever did this manifestly per- 
petrated a fraud for fraudulent purposes. 
Yet from all parts of this book the Divine 
Master and other New Testament inspired 
men quoted. Here is something to be rec- 
onciled by the critical reconciler. Does he 
do it ? Not that we have been able to see 
in his writings on Isaiah. 

But it is said that the literary character- 
istics of the two parts are strikingly dif- 
ferent. Some have even gone so far as to 
affirm that the author of the first thirty- 
nine chapters could not be the author of 
the last twenty-seven. But others have 
found out that they must pick a chapter 
here and there out of the first thirty-nine, 
which somewhat modifies the sweeping 
pronouncement on differences of style. 
48 



Divine Inspiration 

But this argument from style and literary 
characteristics is a very great delusion. 
Different themes require different treat- 
ment. Dr. Stanley Leathes, in his "Wit- 
ness of the Old Testament to Christ/' has 
demonstrated the utter insufficiency of this 
style argument by a thorough examina- 
tion of the two parts of the book, com- 
paring them with well-known productions 
of modern times. Pause to think for a 
moment of the keen discrimination of the 
critic, who can take a work at least twenty- 
five hundred years old, in an Oriental lan- 
guage dead for more than twenty cen- 
turies, and dissect it into six or more docu- 
ments — dissecting out a verse here, a 
sentence there, a phrase and even a word 
in another place, and assigning each to its 
proper author. "Such knowledge is too 
4 49 



Higher Criticism vs. 

wonderful for me." But this is not all. 
Here is a Book that bears the stamp of 
the Divine, in its mighty prophecies, in its 
sublime conceptions of God and His gov- 
ernment here upon earth, all of which have 
been the admiration of the profoundest 
thinkers of this and all intervening ages, 
yet absolutely nameless and unknown. 
Jewish contemporaries so admired His 
wonderful teachings, that they preserved 
them to all coming ages, but they forgot 
His name. But there was a man named 
Isaiah, son of Amoz, who did some proph- 
esying in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, 
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and 
they concluded He must be the man, and 
this mistaken notion has been perpetuated 
through the ages down to the nineteenth 



5° 



Divine Inspiration 

century, when the critics made the marvel- 
ous discovery of five or six Isaiahs. 

But time would fail me here to speak 
of Jeremiah, Daniel, Amos, Micah, Zech- 
ariah, Jonah, who have been decapitated, 
sawn asunder, falsely accused, and tor- 
tured on the rack of criticism, until marred 
out of all resemblance to their former 
selves. But they are in the keeping of 
Him who stands across the ages, saying, 
"Before Abraham was I am," and has alscr 
said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
but My words shall not pass away." 

Almost every assault on the integrity 
of the books of the Old Testament is an 
assault on the truthfulness of the New 
Testament citations. The book most fre- 
quently assaulted — Jonah — is most thor- 



5* 



Higher Criticism vs. 

oughly indorsed by the Master Himself. 
There are 277 citations from the Old Tes- 
tament in the Gospels. In the entire New 
Testament there are 1,033. The exten- 
siveness of these citations shows how 
thoroughly the inspired writers of the 
New Testament and the Master Himself 
indorsed the Old Testament. These cita- 
tions are made in quite a diversity of 
ways, but in nowise different from the 
ordinary methods used by Christian 
writers in all ages in making citations 
from the Bible. But the very manner in 
which these references were made shows 
that the New Testament writers had no 
doubt whatever of the authenticity and 
credibility of the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures, but regarded them as God's Word, 



52 



Divine Inspiration 

which was sufficient to settle all questions 
of controversy, moral and doctrinal. 

Recurring now to our proposition; 
namely, that the Documentary theory is 
destructive of the veracity of the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, and therefore invali- 
dates any rational theory of inspiration 
whatever, I call attention to the fact that 
all anti-supernaturalists so believe, and use 
it for the purpose of eliminating both mir- 
acles and prophecy from the Bible. It will 
be conceded at once that if there is any 
Messianic prophecy to be found in the Old 
Testament, it is in Isaiah. Yet this is in 
effect denied by a recent critic. ("Isaiah. 
A Study of Chapters I-XII," page 215.) 
The author says of Christ in Isaiah's 
prophecies: "In other words He fulfilled 



53 



Higher Criticism vs. 

not this nor any other definite prediction, 
but the grand prophetic thought that 
underlay them all, and that found more 
or less inspired and inspiring expression 
among the Gentiles, and as the supreme 
manifestation of the Divine in the hu- 
man." I give it up. This kind of fulfill- 
ment is too mysterious for me. It simply 
is no fulfillment at all. What is that 
"grand prophetic thought that under- 
lays" Isaiah ix, 6, 7: "For unto us a 
Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and 
the government shall be upon His shoul- 
ders ; and His name shall be called Won- 
derful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlast- 
ing Father, Prince of Peace. Of the in- 
crease of His government and peace there 
shall be no end, upon the throne of David, 
and upon His kingdom to establish it, and 
54 



Divine Inspiration 

to uphold it with judgment and with 
righteousness from henceforth even for- 
ever?" Without question this is a quite 
definite prophecy of Christ. What is that 
prophecy "that found such an inspired 
and inspiring expression among the Gen- 
tiles/' which is like this of Isaiah's? 
Where shall we look for it ? What is this 
"supreme manifestation of the Divine in 
the human/' that took place about Isaiah's 
time? 

Here are glittering generalities, mean- 
ingless rhapsodies, given us for the plain 
words of prophecy. They ought not to 
deceive any one. 

When Wellhausen's attention was 
called to the fact that certain conserv- 
atives, who had adopted his Documentary 
theory, were adjusting Divine inspiration 
55 



Higher Criticism vs. 

in some sort to it, he remarked that he be- 
lieved that "he had proven that the Old 
Testament books were of a very late date, 
and fraudulent in their make-up, but he 
had not thought of holding the Deity in 
any sense responsible for them/' 

Now let it not be forgotten that it is 
not the question whether there are errors 
in the existing text of the Bible — errors 
which can not at present be corrected, 
seeming discrepancies that can not be 
cleared up, subsequent interpolations that 
seem to conflict with the date of author- 
ship, as gathered from the books them- 
selves. For example, the latter part of 
Genesis, chapter xxxvi. But these and 
all of them put together are very small 
difficulties compared with those created 



56 



Divine Inspiration 

by the theory of documents which we have 
been discussing. 

We must remember that a perfect orig- 
inal text is one thing, and its perfect pres- 
ervation in every minute detail quite an- 
other. In fact, the latter would require 
a perpetual miracle. We can not with all 
of our appliances to-day print a perfect 
text of the Bible. But no one that is rea- 
sonable will call these blemishes frauds 
or proofs of frauds, or even proof of orig- 
inal mistake. For to prove this last is to 
assert that we have in these instances the 
exact text of the original author, and that 
copyists and editors have made no mis- 
takes. A Book twenty-five hundred years 
old thus preserved from inaccuracy would 
be a stupendous miracle. 



57 



Higher Criticism vs. 

But this Documentary theory stands on 
an entirely different basis. It contradicts 
the whole trend of history as it is taught 
in the text from beginning to end. It 
revolutionizes the history. The books ob- 
viously teach that the so-called three codes 
are all of Mosaic authorship. The Sina- 
itic code and the Levitical code are older 
by thirty-eight years than the Deuteron- 
omic code. But the theory scatters these 
codes over a period of about one thousand 
years. The Old Testament history in its 
present form is continuous history, orderly 
and successive from that utterance that 
broke the silence of eternity: "God said 
let there be light, and there was light," 
up to the last utterance of Revelation, 
"And if any man shall take away from the 



58 



Divine Inspiration 

words of the book of this prophecy, God 
shall take away his part from the tree of 
life and out of the holy city, which are 
written in this book." 



59 



CHAPTER III. 

The Higher Criticism and the 
Prophets 

Now let us take the mutilated Bible of 
the theory. What is historically the first 
thing in that Bible? It begins with the 
fourth verse of the second chapter of Gen- 
esis, and continues to the end of the third 
chapter. This is the work of the Jehovah- 
Elohist. Then the fourth chapter belongs 
to the uncornbined Jehovist. Then we 
have no more until we come to the twenty- 
ninth verse of the fifth chapter. Then we 
have the Jehovah sections of the fifth, 
sixth, and seventh chapters ; then no more 
until we come to the first nine verses of 
60 



Divine Inspiration 

the eleventh chapter. Then we have the 
twelfth and thirteenth chapters, then frac- 
tions of the fifteenth, sixteenth, seven- 
teenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth. What 
is left out of this? The account of cre- 
ation in the first chapter, up to the third 
verse of the second chapter. Then the 
books of generations, genealogies, part of 
the flood account, the genealogy of the 
sons of Noah in the tenth chapter, the 
fourteenth chapter, and considerable sec- 
tions of the following chapters up to the 
twentieth. At this juncture there appears 
on the scene the "First Elohist." Now 
if you will cull out of the first five books 
of the Bible what was written by the Jeho- 
vist, and then what was written by the 
First Elohist, and put these together, you 
have what it is alleged JE gave us. Or 
61 



Higher Criticism vs. 

in other words, if you will eliminate the 
Book of Deuteronomy and all that is as- 
signed in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and 
Numbers to the Priest or Second Elohist, 
you will be able to form some estimate 
of the fragmentary and incoherent shape 
of this history up to the year B. C. 444, 
when the Priest is said to have written 
and the Redactor patched this whole thing 
together. That Redactor was a genius. 
To him we are indebted for a con- 
sistent consecutive history of the Di- 
vine plan, though it is false and legendary 
throughout. Now if I have not made 
this plain it is not my fault, but the fault 
of the material with which I have to deal. 
The "Polychrome Bible" brings this out 
somewhat clearly to the reader if he can 
in his mind separate the documents from 
62 



Divine Inspiration 

each other as they are separated in time. 
That is, if he can keep clearly before him 
that large and important sections of the 
Pentateuch had no existence until after 
the Exile. In other words, if he will be- 
gin at the fourth chapter of Genesis and 
read the J sections through the Book of 
Genesis, remembering that this is the old- 
est document of the Bible, and produced 
in the southern kingdom of Judea some 
time before the E section was produced 
in the northern kingdom or Israel, he 
will get some conception of the knowledge 
of events conveyed by one of these docu- 
ments. Let him also remember that E 
the first Elohist does not put in a separate 
appearance earlier than the transactions of 
the twentieth chapter. What a fragment- 
ary history this separate document pre- 
63 



Higher Criticism vs. 

sents? Now then going back to the 
fourth verse of the second chapter he has 
what the critics call a redaction of J and 
E, making JE. This continues to the end 
of the third chapter, when the uncombined 
J begins the history. Is not this a history 
fearfully and wonderfully made? Query : 
How did the critics find out that E of the 
combined JE was the first Elohist, rather 
than the "Second Elohist?" It is hard 
to imagine anything more absolutely arti- 
ficial and hypothetical than this whole 
document business. What is the alleged 
purpose of these several combinations of 
documents ? It is said to be to unify these 
documents, to preserve their separate nar- 
ratives, and to make them teach what sep- 
arately they contradict. Now every one 
of these purposes is antagonized on this 
64 



Divine Inspiration 

theory of documents. Unity is certainly 
not secured, else the documents would not 
be discoverable so easily as these critics 
claim. The separate documents are not 
maintained, for they are too fragmentary 
to lead any one to the belief that any one 
of them remains as a whole production. 
And the fraudulent purpose is transparent 
on the theory of the documents. For if 
they were each produced under the cir- 
cumstances that the critics claim, the pur- 
pose of the Redactor in making them teach 
what they would not teach is a transparent 
fraud. 

Now Christ and His apostles built on 
the foundation of Moses and the Proph- 
ets. What a magnificent foundation it 
presents, according to the order of the 
book! From Eden's gate closed on our 
5 65 



Higher Criticism vs. 

first parents down to the exclamation of 
the Conqueror of death on the cross, 
"Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou 
be with Me in Paradise/' Why does this 
word "Paradise" span the dolorous ages 
of darkness and death, and ring out again 
from the cross, if Paradise lost by the first 
Adam is not regained by the second 
Adam? The one a sad and sorrowful 
reality of the triumph of sin, the other 
the glorious reality of the triumph of 
grace in righteousness. The past of the 
Bible history is linked to the present and 
the eternal future. The key is in the hand 
of Him who walked in Eden's garden as 
the night of sin settled down upon the 
earth, and then in midhuman history trod 
the wine-press alone, and by His own arm 
brought salvation, and then again from 
66 



Divine Inspiration 

the excellent glory says, "To him that 
overcometh will I give to eat of the tree 
of life that is in the midst of the Paradise 
of God." Sure are we that you can not 
tear up the foundations without destroy- 
ing the superstructure built thereon. Use 
this Old Testament word as he used it, an 
armory stored with weapons to foil Sa- 
tan's seductions, a storehouse of truth fur- 
nishing unassailable premises for most 
convincing reasoning, a prophetic revela- 
tion of Himself and His kingdom here 
upon the earth and yonder by the throne. 
"O ! foolish men, and slow of heart to be- 
lieve in all that the prophets have spoken ! 
Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these 
things and to enter into His glory ? And 
beginning from Moses and from all the 



67 



Higher Criticism vs. 

prophets, He interpreted to them all the 
Scriptures concerning Himself." 

Recurring to the question again, Does 
the Documentary theory invalidate the in- 
spiration of the Holy Scriptures? What 
does invalidate mean? To render value- 
less — to destroy them as a Divine revela- 
tion. This it most certainly does, for it 
destroys their veracity, and as we said in 
the beginning, a lie can not be inspired. 
A fraud can not receive the Divine sanc- 
tion. The Almighty can never be charged 
with perpetrating a deception. But it is 
asked, "Can not fiction be used to teach 
moral lessons? And is it not so used?' , 
Certainly. But that is not what the Bible 
is made to be by this theory. It is made 
to teach for truth that which is false in 
fact. It was made for the purpose of de- 
6S 



Divine Inspiration 

ceivmg. No doubt the parable of the 
"Good Samaritan" was a fiction, but a fic- 
tion true to life. Nobody ever was de- 
ceived by the fictitious element in it. But 
the antipodes are not wider apart than 
this kind of fiction in its purport and in- 
tent is from that sort of fiction, fraud, 
falsehood that makes the whole Levitical 
economy an invention of a Priest a thou- 
sand years after Moses, palming it off as 
the work of Moses. A fraud that abso- 
lutely reverses the whole order of history. 
A fraud, if the critics' notions are true, 
that renders all Bible history utterly 
worthless. For if a Priest and certain 
Redactors could succeed in so deceiving 
the whole Jewish nation as to their real 
history, and the place of Moses and the 
Prophets in it, what deception may not be 
69 



Higher Criticism vs. 

palmed off on any people? Here is a book 
which, unlike any other contemporary his- 
tory, records the sins of rulers and people, 
the Divine condemnations and punish- 
ments visited upon them for their sins, 
their numerous defeats at the hands of 
their enemies, faithfully preserved by this 
people, though it is historically a fraud 
from beginning to end. You ask me to 
believe the monstrous, the impossible. 
That is not all, this fraudulent compila- 
tion of writings claims from beginning to 
end to be from God. It is always saying, 
"Thus saith the Lord." It also teaches 
the most perfect morality that the world 
ever received. Its doctrine of the God- 
head is the sublimest ever taught to man — 
He is eternal, all-seeing, everywhere pres- 
ent, all-powerful, just, holy, true, merci- 
70 



Divine Inspiration 

ful, long-suffering, and tender in mercy. 
The most ancient of these writings, even 
according to the critics, are filled with 
these sublime teachings. What wonder- 
ful teachers were Amos, Micah, Hosea, 
Joel, Isaiah ! Yet we are told that more 
than two hundred and fifty years after 
their times a wily priest reversed Israel's 
history, and made that first which was 
last, and that which begun in the spiritual 
end in the merely ritual, and overslaughed 
the great teachings of the Prophets with 
the ritualism of the Levitical system. 

In order to help along this process of 
destruction, the time-honored faith of the 
Church of twenty-five centuries is called 
"Traditionalism." Where does history 
with its chain of well-authenticated rec- 
ords end in this case, and tradition begin ? 
7i 



Higher Criticism vs. 

According to the most ultra of the critics 
themselves, at least a century before 
Christ. According to the "conservatives," 
about four hundred years before Christ. 
Who knows that back of either one of 
these dates Israel's history was simply 
"traditional," and preserved as folklore 
from one generation to another, until it 
was put into a written form? This is an 
audacious assumption in face of the fact 
that we have written history that claims 
to emanate from the pen of Moses. Yes, 
the step is easy from "tradition" to "folk- 
lore," then to "myths," "legends," and 
the like. The New Testament revelation 
is built upon the historic veracity of the 
Old Testament Scriptures, and he who 
overthrows the truth of the Old Testa- 



72 



Divine Inspiration 

ment undermines the foundation of the 
New Testament. 

Now we conclude this by saying that 
we have no fears for the Word of God 
in this conflict. It will come out all right, 
and its truthfulness will be maintained, 
and thereby its Divine inspiration be dem- 
onstrated, for it is the world's only reve- 
lation of God to man, and of man to him- 
self. It alone radiates with light, life, 
and hope this dark abode of man, and the 
"valley of the shadow" that limits our 
present natural vision. It alone tells us 
whence we are and whither our destiny, 
and man can not do without it. Sure are 
we therefore that God will take care of 
it. But we fear for the evangelical 
Churches, that have borrowed from skep- 



73 



Higher Criticism vs. 

tics these theories born in skepticism, and 
destined to lead very many souls out into 
the night and gloom of unbelief and de- 
spair. Eighteenth century Deism had its 
day, and gave place to Rationalism. But 
that also was scientifically, logically, crit- 
ically found wanting. Now this evolution 
of the latter half of the nineteenth century 
occupies the place of these older forms of 
skepticism, and is, we believe, finding its 
reductio ad absurdum in such works as 
Encyclopedia Biblica. 

It will be observed that we have said 
nothing about the higher criticism as a 
form of criticism. Whenever it is di- 
vorced effectually from a theory that in- 
validates the Old Testament Scriptures, 
and deals with facts instead of hypotheses, 
we are ready to welcome it as a help 
74 



Divine Inspiration 

towards the understanding and elucida- 
tion of the Scriptures. But unfortunately 
it has been handicapped by theories and 
hypotheses from the start, that were at 
war with Divine revelation. It proposed 
to "humanize" the Scriptures, but it is 
humanizing the Divine out of them. It is 
filling them w T ith human conceits, foibles, 
frailties, deceptions, to the extent that 
they become utterly unreliable. Let us 
beware lest we make it wholly a human 
book, or so much a human book that the 
Divine can not be co-ordinated with it in 
any kind of logical consistency. "But we 
have this treasure in earthen vessels" — 
in human language, and style, and the per- 
sonal peculiarities of the human authors 
and their times — but "the exceeding great- 
ness of the power is of God," and not of 
75 



Higher Criticism vs. 

man. The Church long ago recognized 
the human in the Scriptures, and consist- 
ently correlated it with the Divine. It 
needs no theory to-day born out of crass 
materialism to elucidate this. We believe 
there is no middle ground. Those who 
hold to faith in the supernatural and mi- 
raculous, will be driven by logical consist- 
ency either away from the Documentary 
theory or into the anti-supernaturalism 
and unbelief. 

A Specimen Page of our American Con- 
tribution to the Documentary Theory. 
Since preparing my paper on this sub- 
ject, there came into my hands some speci- 
men pages of a work just issuing from the 
press. It is entitled, "The Student's 
Old Testament/' by Charles Foster 
Kent, Ph. D., of Yale Divinity School. 
76 



Divine Inspiration 

It is variously commended by certain re- 
ligious journals as "a very timely work 
from the conservative standpoint." If it 
voices the conservative view, there is very 
little to distinguish the conservative from 
the destructive. Page 266 of the first vol- 
ume is given as a sample of the methods 
of the writer, and doubtless intended to 
show how readily the division into docu- 
ments can be made, and how instructive 
this tri-partition of the story of the Ex- 
odus. 



77 



CHAPTER IV 

A Sample of this Criticism 

We) herewith give first the text of the 
Revised Version, Exodus xiv, 19-31? 
twelve verses. Following it the author's 
decomposition into documents: 

" 19. And the angel of God which went before the 
camp of Israel, removed and went behind 
them ; and the pillar of cloud removed from 
before them and stood behind them. 

" 20. And it came between the camp of Egypt and 
the camp of Israel ; and there was the cloud and 
the darkness, yet gave it light by night : and 
the one came not near the other all the night, 

" 21. And Moses stretched out his hand over the 
sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back 
by a strong wind all the night, and made the 
sea dry land and the waters were divided. 

" 22. And the children of Israel went into the midst 
of the sea upon the dry ground: And the 
waters were a wall unto them on their right 
hand and on their left. 

78 



Divine Inspiration 

" 23. And the Egytians pursued and went in after 
them, into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's 
horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 

" 24. And it came to pass in the morning watch 
that the Lord looked forth upon the host of 
the Egyptians, through the pillar of fire and 
of cloud, and discomfited the host of the 
Egyptians. 

" 25. And took off their chariot wheels that they 
drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians 
said, Let us flee from the face of Israel ; for the 
Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 

" 26. And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out 
thine hand over the sea that the waters may 
come again upon the Egyptians, upon their 
chariots, and upon their horsemen. 

" 27. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the 
sea, and the sea returned to its strength when 
the morning appeared ; and the Egyptians 
fled against it ; and the Lord overthrew the 
Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 

"28. And the waters returned and covered the 
chariots, and the horsemen, even all the host 
of Pharaoh that went in after them into the 
sea ; there remained not so much as one of 
them. 

"29. But the children of Israel walked upon^dry 
land in the midst of the sea, and the waters 
were a wall unto them on their right hand 
and on their left. 

79 



Higher Criticism vs. 

"30. Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of 
the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw 
the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. 

"31. And Israel saw the great work which the 
Lord did upon the Egyptians, and the peo- 
ple feared the Lord : and they believed in the 
Lord : and in his servant Moses." 

The reader will notice the following cap- 
tion, "The Triple Tradition 01? the De- 
liverance." Now this "triple tradition" 
represents the work of four parties — three 
alleged original authors, and the Redactor 
who blended them into one, and is the 
author of our present text. The first hy- 
pothetical author is called "The Early 
Judean Prophetic." The second is called 
"The Ephrajmite Prophetic." The third 
is called "Priestly Narratives." We infer 
that there is believed to be more than one 
of these "Priestly Narrators," — as many 
as the exigencies of the theory may re- 
80 



Divine Inspiration 



Specimen Page, Student's Old Testament. 

Ex. i 4 19 3 TRIPLE TRADITION OF THE DELIVERANCE 

[Ex. ia21 



Early Judean Pro- 
phetic 

Deliver- 196 Then the pillar of 
ance of cloud changed its posi- 
the Isra- ti° n from before them 
elites and stood behind them, 
and de- m And the cloud lighted 
struc- up the night; yet 
tion of throughout the entire 
their night the one army did 
pursuers not come near the other. 
21& And Jehovah caused 
the sea to go back by a 
strong east wind all the 
night, and made the bed 
of the sea dry. 24 And it 
came to pass in the 
watch before the dawn 
that Jehovah looked 
forth through the pillar 
of fire and of cloud upon 
the host of the Egyp- 
tians, 25 and he bounds 
their chariot wheels, so 
that they proceeded with 
difficulty. Then the 
Egyptians said, Let us 
flee from before Israel; 
for Jehovah fighteth for 
them against the Egyp- 
tians. 276 But the sea re- 
turned to its ordinary 
level' 1 toward morning, 
while the Egyptians 
were flying before it. 
And Jehovah shook off 
the Egyptians into the 
midst of sea, 286 so that 
not one of them re- 
mained. 30 Thus Jeho- 
vah saved Israel that 
day out of # the power of 
the Egyptians; and Is- 
rael saw the Egyptians 
dead upon the seashore. 



q r isiThen Moses and the Is- 

tWiVc ^elites sang this song to Je- 
givmg hovah, using these words: 

I will sing to Jehovah, for he 
is greatly exalted; 



14' 
Ephraimite Pro- 

plietic 

i 9 «Then the Mes- 
senger of God, who 
went before the 
camp of Israel con- 
tinually, changed 
his position and 
went behind them, 
20 «so that he came 
between the camp 
of Egypt and the 
camp of Israel; and 
there was darkness. 
Then Moses lifted 
ufi his staff andthe 
waters div idedf 
and Israel went 
forward into the 
midst of the sea, 
23( 'and the Egyp- 
tians pursued; 
24 'but Jehovah 
threw the host of 
the Egyptians into 
confusion, and 
[Josh.24 7i ] brought 
the sea tipon them 
and cozier ed them. 
21 And when Israel 
saw the great work 
which Jehovah did 
upon the Egyp- 
tians, the people 
feared Jehovah; 
and they believed 
in Jehovah and in 
his servant Moses. ( 



Priestly Narratives 
2ia 5 6Then Moses 
stretched out his hand 
over the sea, and the 
waters were divided 
22 so that the Israel- 
ites went into the 
midst of the sea on 
the dry ground; and 
the waters were a wall 
to them on their right 
hand and on their left. 
23 And the Egyptians 
went in after them 
into the midst of the 
sea, all Pharaoh's 
horses, his chariots, 
and his horsemen. 
26 Then Jehovah said 
to Moses, Stretch out 
thy hand over the sea, 
that the waters may 
come again upon the 
Egyptians, upon their 
chariots and their 
horsemen. 27a So Mo- 
ses stretched forth his 
hand over the sea, 
28a and the waters re- 
turned and covered 
the chariots, and the 
horsemen, even all 
the host of Pharaoh 
that went in after 
them into the sea. 
29 But the Israelites 
walked upon dry land 
in the midst of the 
sea, the waters being 
a wall to them on 
their right hand, and 
on their left. 



i5 20 Then Miriam the prophetess, 
the sister of Aaron, took a tambour- 
ine in her hand; and all the women 
went out after her with tambourines 
and with dancing. 21 And Miriam 
sang to them, 



/ I4 20a Cf. is, io 2 66 t Jehovah's staff will be over the sea and he 
will lift it tip after the manner of Egypt. Possibly a reference to 
the omitted part of the Fphraimite version. 

9 14 25 So Gk. and Sam. Heb., took off. but in that case even slow 
progress would have been impossible. A very slight correction of 
the Heb. gives the above reading. The meaning probably is that 
the wheels were stuck. 



Higher Criticism vs. 

quire. What is surprising in this whole 
thing is the assurance with which it is put 
forth. Not an intimation is ever breathed 
by these parties that this whole thing is 
mere speculation, but the lines of dissec- 
tion are run in and out among these twelve 
verses with all the confidence of one deal- 
ing with facts and not with sheer hypoth- 
eses. 

Before we proceed with our examina- 
tion of this piece of criticism, we wish to 
ask some questions, which we believe are 
pertinent as questions to be settled pre- 
liminarily to this criticism, (i) Who 
ever heard of these alleged three or four 
authors or their documents until a very 
modern hyopthesis evolved them? (2) 
Who can give us any more than a mere 
guess as to when these authors lived and 
82 



Divine Inspiration 

wrote? (3) Who knows that one was 
"Judean" and the other "Ephraimite?" 
(4) Why are the alleged "Priestly Nar- 
ratives" now put at such a late period of 
Israel's history, if not at the behest of a 
pure hypothesis, which has for its object 
the destruction of the Mosaic authorship 
of the Levitical economy ? ( 5 ) How did 
Moses's name come to be identified with 
all of these writings, historically from the 
days of Ezra down to modern times? 
(6) Is it not a violent presumption to call 
the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt 
simply a "tradition," since the Bible con- 
tains a consecutive history from that time 
down to the days of Ezra? (7) Who 
knows that this history was not preserved 
in written chronicles from Moses to Ezra ? 
They are frequently spoken of from Moses 
83 



Higher Criticism vs. 

to Ezra. (8) Is there the slightest par- 
ticle of proof to support the assumption 
of "traditions," "folk-lore stories/' and 
"legends" as the basis of anything con- 
tained in the Bible history? 

We are not asking for anything unrea- 
sonable when we are asking for some 
proofs outside of the requirements of a 
theory, that there ever existed such docu- 
ments; proofs other than the artificial 
manufacturing of them. Yes, we will be 
willing to receive a bare "tradition" that 
such a species of literature ever existed 
in Israel. When we ask for this proof we 
are given an hypothesis, and then when 
we ask for the reasons for this hypothesis 
we are given another hypothesis. Logic- 
ally have we not a right to something 
other than a guess in one or the other of 

8 4 



Divine Inspiration 

the premises before we accept the conclu- 
sion as unassailable? 

Now take up this specimen fragment. 
( I ) We notice that the " Judean Prophet" 
is made to tell us about the "pillar of 
cloud and fire/' but nothing about "the 
angel of God," while the "Ephraimite 
Prophet" tells us about "the angel of 
God," but nothing about the "pillar of 
cloud and fire." Why was this split made 
between these two facts ? Were the hypo- 
thetical authors each ignorant of what the 
other tells, or did the Redactor take one 
fact from one author and the other from 
the other ? What canons of literary crit- 
icism require this distinction in assign- 
ments? Now the "Priestly Narratives," 
verses 19 and 20, are simply split into two 
and divided out between the "Judean" 
85 



Higher Criticism vs. 

and the "Ephraimite Prophetic/' and the 
"Priest" has nothing in either. 

( 2 ) From this forward we will call these 
hypothetical documents J. E. and P., for 
they are simply the J. E. and P. of the 
Documentary theory. J tells us about the 
"strong east wind Jehovah caused to blow 
all the night." Neither E nor P knows 
anything about it. J further tells us that 
the "pillar of cloud and fire lighted up the 
way for the Israelites," but does not tell 
us about the darkness upon the camp of 
the Egyptians. This E tells us about, 
though he knows nothing at all about the 
"pillar of cloud and fire." Singular, is it 
not? Possibly this darkness that E tells 
about comes from its being night. P has 
nothing to say about this light and dark- 
ness. So far as he is concerned, it might 
86 



Divine Inspiration 

have all occurred in the daylight. E uses 
the term camp to define both the assem- 
blies of the Egyptians and the Israelites. 
Possibly camp (Heb. Machaneh) was one 
of the marks of E. E also tells us about 
Moses's "staff" that he stretched over the 
sea. J and P know nothing about this 
"staff." It is not in the original text at 
all, but has been by the critic conjecturally 
gotten out of Isaiah x, 26. We are told 
that this was "an omitted part of the 
Ephraimite version." It must be there- 
fore that Isaiah quoted from an Ephraim- 
ite version, that R did not have or use 
when he gave us the blended document 
called Exodus. Critically this is quite a 
circuitous route to find an omitted frag- 
ment of this alleged "Ephraimite version." 
P knows nothing of this "staff," though 
87 



Higher Criticism vs. 

he ought have known of this fragment of 
the Ephraimite version preserved in 
Isaiah, for he certainly lived and wrote 
after these prophecies ascribed to Isaiah. 
P tells us that Moses "stretched his hand" 
over the sea. Now this whole fragment 
business belongs clearly to the old "Frag- 
ment hypothesis" which has long since 
been abandoned. The "Modified Docu- 
ment" hypothesis requires the preserva- 
tion intact of the original documents. 
But all through this dissection we evi- 
dently have a combination of fragments, 
and not documents. 

(3) In order to have the Ephraimite 
story not omit the important particular 
contained in the other two — namely, that 
the sea covered the Egyptian — a section 
is brought over from Joshua xxiv, 7b. 
88 



Divine Inspiration 

Without this emendation E would be an 
incoherent fragment. But this substitu- 
tion is evidently from a J document in 
Joshua. Singular that the E document 
must be patched out by a fragment from 
a J or at best a JE document. 

(4) The P narrative tells us that 
Moses stretched his hand the second time 
over the sea, that the waters might return 
on the Egyptians. But neither J nor E 
has anything to say about it. Again, the 
J narrative has nothing to say about the 
Israelites crossing the sea at all. Accord- 
ing to it the Egyptians got into the sea 
and were drowned, but the Israelites man- 
aged to keep out of it. Now while J had 
so much to say about the sea being divided 
and its bed becoming "dry land," is it not 
surprising that he omitted to tell us any- 
89 



Higher Criticism vs. 

thing about the Israelites passing through 
it, when he is supposed to have told this 
very thing over in Joshua xxiv ? But we 
have already shown that the E narrative 
must be interpolated from J in Joshua, in 
order to have the sea divided and get the 
Israelites into it. What literary canon 
justifies a procedure like this? It will be 
an exceedingly easy matter to construct 
documents if these liberties are allowed. 

(5) E tells us that the "angel of God 
went from before the camp of Israel to a 
place between the camp of Israel and the 
camp of Egypt." The text then says, "And 
there was the cloud and darkness," but 
here the critic has coolly left out the words 
"the cloud," which Ave find nowhere in 
these alleged three accounts. What be- 
came of this phrase? Was it an interpo- 
90 



Divine Inspiration 

lation of the Redactor? It is apparent 
that the critic has no use for it in E, where 
no clouds appear, but he does have use 
for the "darkness" connected with this 
cloud, for he says, "and there was dark- 
ness." What rule of literary criticism re- 
quired the omission of this phrase, "the 
cloud?" 

(6) The word "it" in verse 20a which 
refers to the "pillar of cloud" in 19b is 
converted into "he" by the critic to make 
it agree with "angel of God." Why ? Be- 
cause E has nowhere else mentioned this 
"pillar of cloud," and "it" of the text 
would be without grammatical relation. 
In J in verse 20b "it" is made to disappear 
from the text. Considerable liberty is 
taken here in the matter of translation to 
help out the theory. 
9 1 



Higher Criticism vs. 

(7) Another striking illustration of the 
contradictions involved in this critical 
dissection is the cross reference of the 
Ephraimite section to something found in 
the Priest Narratives. Following upon 
what is quoted from Isaiah x, 26, we have 
the words, "and Israel went forward into 
the midst of the sea/' a reference to the 
same statement found in P, only the word 
Israelites in P is substituted for Israel in 
E and the words "children of Israel" in 
the text. Now the word "forward" is 
added in E to the text. Now while this 
is a reference upon the part of E to what 
is to be found in P alone, yet the critics 
make P write at least three hundred years 
after E. But it may be asked, "May it 
not be a quotation of P from E?" We 
think not, for E itself is, according to the 
92 



Divine Inspiration 

critic, made up of fragments taken from 
Isaiah and J in Joshua. But strike out 
these sections of Isaiah, Joshua, and P, 
and the Ephraimite story is fragmentary 
and incoherent, and neither the Egyptians 
nor the Israelites were in the sea. The 
only harm that came to the Egyptians 
was that they "were thrown into confu- 
sion." What at, does not transpire, unless 
it was at the "angel of God." 

(8) But if this "Ephraimite Prophet" 
is E of the Documentary theory, he is sup- 
posed to have a strong preference for the 
Divine name Elohim. But he is a Jeho- 
vist here four times to Elohim once. This 
puzzles us greatly as to the real signifi- 
cance of these distinguishing marks. Per- 
haps this is the reason why this author 



93 



Higher Criticism vs. 

calls him "Ephraimite Prophetic/' rather 
than the "First Elohist." 

But now as to the general make-up of 
these three alleged accounts, i. They do 
not agree in certain important particulars. 
If they are not fragmentary, they are dis- 
crepant throughout. That is, if each of 
them tells a complete story the stories are 
in conflict, and if they do not tell a com- 
plete story they are not documents, but 
fragments. 2. Taken together as the al- 
leged Redactor has left them, they are 
consistent, coherent, and self-explanatory. 
Tear them apart as this critical scheme 
has done, and make them separate ac- 
counts from widely different sources, and 
from one to four hundred years apart, 
and you have no explanation of either 
their origin or meaning. 3. The careful 
94 



Divine Inspiration 

student of this case of literary trisection 
is at once impressed with the arbitrary 
methods of the whole procedure. Let him 
ask himself why this to J and why this 
to E and why this to P ? and see if he can 
give a sufficient reason outside of a pre- 
conceived theory. 

But we are naively told that these are 
"traditions," the oldest of which is about 
five hundred years away from the event 
it describes, the latest about a thousand 
years. Now these "traditions" deal with 
miracles. Are these miracles genuine? 
Are they sufficiently attested coming down 
to us through five hundred years of folk- 
lore stories ? This account of the Exodus 
contains a wonderful miracle — the divid- 
ing of the waters and the destruction of 
the Egyptian army. Does the critic be- 
95 



Higher Criticism vs. 

lieve that any miracle or miracles were 
wrought in this connection? If so, what 
does he make out of the primary testi- 
mony? 

But on the other hand, if this account 
comes to us, as it claims from Moses, 
then we have historic foundations that fit 
into their proper place in Israel's history, 
unique and miraculous as it claims to be. 
For a marvel we are told that this crit- 
icism "furnishes for the historian the data 
for the easy reconstruction of Biblical his- 
tory, to the literary student the basis for a 
new understanding and appreciation of the 
wonderful literature of the Old Testa- 
ment, and to the pastor, the Sunday-school 
teacher, the parent, and the individual 
reader positive religious facts and teach- 
ings, the want of which is being strongly 
96 



Divine Inspiration 

felt in this age when destructive conclu- 
sions are much in evidence." In the pres- 
ence of such a manifesto the writer finds 
himself in profound perplexity. No de- 
structive critic could take more liberty 
with the text of the Scriptures, and more 
completely revolutionize the whole trend 
of its historic teachings than he has done 
on this sample page. If his theory of 
documents and their origin is true, the 
Bible is false, and purposely made to teach 
a false system from beginning to end. Is 
not the "priest codex" ascribed by its au- 
thor to Moses? And yet does not this 
critic ascribe it to a period one thousand 
years after Moses? If such critical ma- 
nipulating of God's Word as is shown 
here is not destructive of its veracity, and 
all reverence for it in the minds of the 
7 97 



Higher Criticism vs. 

general public, we are at loss to conceive 
what could be. If this whole procedure, 
as indicated in these alleged three parti- 
tions of this account, is not imaginary, ar- 
bitrary, and unjustifiable by any facts con- 
nected with the text itself, then may we 
vote the stories of the Arabian Nights' 
Entertainment all sober realities. 

To show how easily this process of par- 
tition can be effected with almost any kind 
of literature, we have taken the first para- 
graph of this announcement and have split 
it into two accounts. We might have split 
it into three had we been permitted to 
transfer fragments from other sections 
and make cross references, as did the critic 
with Exodus xiv, 19-31. In fact, we con- 
tend that our division is more neatly done 
than the critic's two principal documents 
98 



Divine Inspiration 

— the "Judean" and "the Priest Narra- 
tives." We have not left out words and 
substituted others, except in three in- 
stances. But the critic has done this re- 
peatedly. Possibly it is the lack of the 
gift of imagination on our part, a gift 
which we notice has a large development 
in Old Testament critics. There is a re- 
dundancy of expression in the author of 
this announcement, whether it is the critic 
himself or not, that makes it a very easy 
matter to split up his writings into docu- 
ments. Perhaps his familiarity with the 
Hebrew idiom, and Hebrew poetic paral- 
lelism, excess of metaphor, and the like, 
has begotten in him all the characteristics 
of a Hebrew Redactor. At least we are 
ready to submit this sample of redacted 
literature, and justify our conclusions on 

99 

SLofC. 



Higher Criticism vs. 

critical grounds that it is a composite writ- 
ing of the same kind that the author fur- 
nishes us in the "Tradition of the Deliv- 
erance." 

We herewith present the original com- 
posite document, which we have discov- 
ered to be composed of two primitive doc- 
uments. The first we will, for conven- 
ience of designation, call O and the second 
I. The characteristic phrase of O is "The 
Old Testament Writings/' That of I, 
"Israel's Inspired Teachers." So named 
after the first letters of their terms : 

ANNOUNCEMENT 

The five essentials The Old Testament is a library con- 
fer Old Testament ta i n i ng t k e writings of Israel's in- 

(1) A systematic s pi re ^ teachers, who lived at periods 
classification of its far removed from each other, wrote 
contents. from widely different points of view 

and expressed their thoughts in the language and 
literary forms peculiar to the primitive Semitic 
ioo ■ % 



Divine Inspiration 

Bast. Their modern readers, however, live in the 
very different Western world. The result, is that 
while the combination of early songs primitive 
traditions, ethnological tables, tribal stories, 
genealogical lists, prophetic exhortations, laws, 
judicial precedents and historical narratives, 
found, for example, in such a book as Exodus, 
seems perfectly natural to the intuitive Ori- 
ental, it is a fertile source of confusion to the 
logical Occidental. The obvious solution of the 
difficulty is to be found in systematic classifica- 
tion. This work was begun by the Greek trans- 
lators of the Old Testament to whom is chiefly due 
the approximately logical arrangement of the 
books in the English Bible. The confusion may 
be still further eliminated by grouping together 
those writings which have the same general theme, 
aim, and literary form, and then by rearranging 
them within each group in the approximate order 
in which they were written. 

O I 

The Old Tetament writ- Israel's inspired teach- 
ings is a library in the ers who lived at periods 
language and literary far removed from each 
forms peculiar to the other (in) the primitive 
East, containing what is Semitic East expressed 
written from widely dif- their thoughts in early 
ferent points of view — songs, primitive tradi- 

IOI 



Higher Criticism vs. 



prophetic exhortations, 
judicial precedents, laws, 
and historical narratives, 
found, for example, in 
such a book as Exodus. 
The approximately log- 
ical arrangement of the 
books in the English 
Bible, is chiefly due (to) 
the systematic classifica- 
tion as begun by the 
Greek translators of the 
Old Testament. Still 
further, the obvious so- 
lution of the difficulty 
of (literary analysis) is 
to be found in rearrang- 
ing them in the approx- 
imate order in which 
they were written.* 



tions, ethnological ta- 
bles, tribal stories. 
Their modern readers, 
however, live in a very 
different Western world. 
The result is that while 
the combination seems 
very natural to intuitive 
Orientals, it is a fertile 
source of confusion to 
the logical Occidental. 
This confusion may be 
eliminated by group- 
ing together those writ- 
ings which have the 
same general theme, 
aim, and literary form. 



*(i.) In and to in the O document were words omitted 
by the Redactor. 

(2.) The phrase " literary analysis " here supplied is to 
be found in O further along where he is treating of the 
same subject. We regard it as omitted by the Redactor. 

(3.) In is also supplied in the I document for similar 
reasons. 



I02 



Divine Inspiration 

Now, in conclusion, though this may 
be regarded as somewhat of a travesty 
upon the serious, painstaking, and "schol- 
arly" work of the critics, it is, we think, 
fully justified as a means of showing up 
the unreasonable lengths to which they 
have gone in splitting up the Scriptures 
into inconsistent and incoherent frag- 
ments. It must not be forgotten that it is 
God's revelation to a sin-ruined world 
that they have undertaken to pick to pieces 
with their theories. One of the arguments 
for their scheme of decomposing the Scrip- 



(4.) For the word " Western '' in the I document we pre- 
fer the word "Occidental" since the author has used it 
elsewhere in contrast with Oriental. These high sound- 
ing terms derived from a foreign tongue are more in ac- 
cordance with his style. They indicate somewhat of the 
date of the document also. It was written after these I^atin 
terms came into the English language. 



103 



Higher Criticism vs. 

tures into these assumed original docu- 
ments, is that it can be done, and that the 
separate documents will still present an 
intelligible account. It is very pertinent 
as a rejoinder to this argument to show 
that almost any piece of literature can be 
divided up in the same way, and in a ma- 
jority of instances not so much violence 
done to the structure of the original state- 
ments of the text, nor so frequently con- 
jectural emendations and interpolations be 
employed to make consistent reading. 
We have a striking illustration of the 
shifts resorted to in the instance I have 
just presented. Two whole passages are 
injected into the E document from an out- 
side source. Were it not for this it would 
be meaningless. Now we have no fear 

104 



Divine Inspiration 

for the Word of God, but we do fear that 
souls will be wrecked and perish, and the 
Church will be shorn of her strength be- 
cause of these perversions of God's eter- 
nal Word. 



™5 



OCT 1 1904 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 822 344 2 




81 mIB 



